In my opinion, paying for a psychologist to evaluate the plaintiff in attempts at constructing the fathers defense isn't something they (the poster or her husband) should innitiate. The court will, undoubtely, ask for their own INDEPENDENT evaluation. Obviously, an evaluation the FATHER pays for is going to be viewed as prejudicial by the court. If an evaluation of any kind is going to be done to vindicate the father, it needs to be done under the auspices of his attorney who has access to specialist who are not only familiar with the subject matter, but also the process of testifying in court.

If he hires someone on his own now, he can, obviously, get some answers for his own peace of mind ( or conversely, NOT for his peace of mind). But, I don't think that testimony would carry nearly the weight that a professional hired by the court would.

Also, another important point that would make the hiring of a mental professional difficult, if not impossible---The 'child' is of age, legally. This means if she doesn't want to be 'questioned', she does not have to be.

I suspect she has no interest in being questioned by someone--anyone--hired by her father. Period.

One other thought--perhaps the PD's feelings spring from the merits of the case---her thinking he is guilty doesn't mean she won't represent him well. It means if she isn't convinced of his innocence, then a jury or a judge probably won't be either. Her rejection of certain premises or "evidence" may well be tactical in nature--introducing certain 'evidence' can be a Pandora's box on cross examination. I am not sure her comments suggest her lack of interest as much as they may indicate her inability to use certain elements she views as risky if they are presented as part of his defense.